Re: Make Grob::name accessible to Scheme (issue 203090043 by address@hidden)

[David Kastrup]

Paul Morris <address@hidden> writes:

> David Nalesnik-2 wrote
>> On 2015/02/16 07:56:10, dak wrote:
>>> "Needing to determine the name of a grob" should actually rarely be
>>> necessary:
>>> the pervasive information connected to the functionality of a grob is
>>> rather its
>>> interfaces.  That's the usual criterion for deciding whether to deal with
>>> a
>>> particular grob.  Relaying on the name makes it harder to create variants
>>> of
>>> existing grobs.
>> 
>> I see what you are saying.  I'm aware that grob recognition takes place
>> through interfaces, and that the user could use grob::has-interface.
>
> Hmmm... would it be a good idea to also have a ly:grob-has-interface scheme
> function?

How would it differ from the existing grob::has-interface ?

-- 
David Kastrup